Milo Yianopoulos banned from Twitter-Bad precedence for censorship in social media

Goken wrote: Full disclosure, I'm at work and my work computer won't load the videos.

Free speech is always an interesting topic because it is somewhat vague. As far as the First Amendment goes it was designed to keep the government from shutting down and persecuting people who spoke poorly of them. That's a gross over simplification but still.

When using someone else's platform you are always subject to their rules. If Twitter feels that he violated those rules they are within their rights to do so. That's just the way it goes. Their house, their rules. Don't like it? Find another house to play in. It's that simple.

i agree with this sort of but it gets complicated when a particular "house" becomes a shared cultural space

we use technology to connect, and the spaces where we share ideas are always going to be hosted by someone.
this idea that the rights of the host as owner are so much greater than the rights of the user as guest set us up for a great deal of unfair exploitation

the way we are tracked online is a great example, which i dont want to go too far into here but the gist is that the companies have decicded that if you want to own a smartphone or go online then you agree to give up all of your privacy so that your information can be given or sold to whoever they decide without you knowing what information that is or who gets it or when or why, and it isnt right

but smartphones (or at least cell phones) and the internet are so entrenched into the cultural experience of today that you literally are excluded from majorly important arenas of modern society without them

and there is no serious backlash from consumers to correct this because we all want to participate, but its OBVIOUSLY against our best interests and its going to get worse

this twitter case is another example
yes twitter has rights as a host, but twitter is now a hugely popular medium for social exchange, and if it is allowed to arbitrarily impose its own ideological preference about who should be allowed to have a voice and who shouldn't, then imo that would count as a violation of one of the most important collective values of our culture: free speech

which would essentially render twitter into a medium of propaganda, and not of legitimate exchange

and we NEED free exchange, way more than propaganda

Goken wrote: Personally, I think Twitter should be a place where people can say pretty much whatever they want short of actual threats. If you don't like what a person says on Twitter just don't follow them. Twitter is meant for people to be able to say what they want to anyone who wants to listen. You can always choose to just not listen. It's that simple.

thats how i feel about the internet in general

ilo is intelligent and a comedian, he's also incredibly provocateur (no wonder you like him, Khaos, ha ha!). He stirs up trouble for the fun of it, then cries "freedom of speech" when his stirring gets him in trouble.

There is a little more to it than that though.

Martin Luther King also incited a lot of controversy, most anyone who speaks out provocatively does. But what does being provocative really mean in todays world?

He incited much more violence too, if we want to get technical.

While yes, he has fun, and is funny, he is also again, spot on on a lot of what he says, and he is fiercely intelligent. He wraps his points in some interesting ways, but it would be wrong to think he is not saying something worth hearing.

Would Martin Luther King be banned from twitter? Somebody "banned" him with a gun.

You see, it is about safe spaces and privilege, because of the manner of selection in there attempts to ban him and not others who also wrote poor reviews about Ghostbusters.

You cannot call this the straw that broke the camels back given what goes up on Twitter everyday, and Milo is hardly the worst in any category.

Also, I never claimed to like him.

Thats a leap, as I disagree on a lot of what he says( of course, like anything I agree with some of it too), but not the way he says it, nor am I so immature that I cannot handle the way he says it and respond in a manner that pays more attention to the subject matter he is speaking about than the way in which he has decided to say it.

I do not have to agree with someone, or like them or what they say to defend there right to say what they think is important.

It is an attempt at character assassination in many ways, because if your going to ban someone, I think it should be over something more than a movie review.

More than anything, with this, they have proven his point rather than making one of there own.

Silas Mercury wrote: He deserves to be jailed in my opinion. Ironically, those who lean to the right, are not right.

Do you mean he should be in prison because of his political views?